Collogue:Main Page/Archive 1

This is Archive 1. OchAyeTheNoo 21:07, 20 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Hou tae stairt a new airticle

Ok Av stairtit niew airticles anent Jade Goody, Shilpa Shetty an Celebrity Big Brother 2007, but they'll maun need an expert een tae kiek ower thum an aussie onie ane o yes wha waants tae add details, please gang aheid an dae so (ma Scots comes an gangs wayoot practice an whit wae aw the time a spend readin the Inglis talk page on Scots:}). Aussie, hoo can ye mak siccar thit the niew paigis gets leistit in the leets o ither pages ower the same subject?82.41.4.66 14:13, 6 Februar 2007 (UTC)

For tae list a page amang ithers anent the same subject A jalouse ye maun keek at Special:Categories an see gin sicna category exeests. Gin no mak ane by pittin [[Category:Name o the Category]] at the dowp end o the page in thon category (kin). There micht be ither weys o gaun aboot this sae mebbes some ither body can enlichten us.

84.135.250.183 14:31, 6 Februar 2007 (UTC)

Please enlighten me!

how dae ye stairt a new airticle here? its gien me a sair heed as its no obvious how ye gang aboot it!80.192.59.202 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Gang tae Wikipedia:Walcome

thanx fer the quick reponse :} 80.192.59.202 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

having read it, i see it only covers editting and not starting new ones. how on earth do you start a new article!?!? it seems you can only edit articlers or write ones that are here in red letters. How can onybodie sckrieve a brand new one please oniebodie!!! its driving me up the wall as i waanted tae dae aboot twenty a day an cannae even get stairtet on it noo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!80.192.59.202 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a guid pynt Hou tae stairt a new airticle shoud be in amang thon guidal somewhaur.

Easiest for the nou is tae gang tae the Saundpit an mak an [[airtin]] like this, giein it the name the airticle ye want tae stairt. Syne hain it, sneck on the airtin an cairy on fae there.

84.135.246.63 16:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Och! A juist mynt o anither wey. Write the name o the airticle in the rake kistie on the left, sneck the Gang button. Gin that airticle isna thare ye hae the option o creatin it.

84.135.246.63 16:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanx fer the help. a finally fund the richt bit tae click. Ye have tae rake fer the airticle, an then gin its no yet been added, click on the reed title at the tap o the page. Thon taks ye tae the place ye ocht tae be fer tae start skrievin it yersel.Gin onybody wants tae chynge the orthography nor spellin o onything av pit feel free tae dae so, as a doot av aiblins makt a few mistakes in ma grammar nor speillin. Aussi if awbodie here adds an airticle ivry few weeks, well gang een higher up the leet o wikipedia leids.80.192.59.202 09:37, 1 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

weel av written three new airticles, but noo am wonderin hoo tae mak siccar that they appear on the side o the correspondin versions fae in the ither leids?80.192.59.202 06:44, 2 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Ye need tae gang tae the airticle in the ither leid. Sneck on Edit, at the dowp o the text in the edit kistie is the airtins tae ither leids, aw ye need dae is eik [[sco:Name o Airticle]] in amang thaim. Ye can mebbes copy aw the airtins on that page an batter thaim intae the Scots ane.

84.135.254.76 16:18, 2 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Richtin scunnersome skaith

Is thare an easy wey for tae pit back the aforegane version o a page? A jalouse this winna be the first time the Scots Creenge gars a body dae awa wi whit thay've aye been telt tae be affrontit wi.

Aye, thare is:

• dab on "history"
• dab on the date o the reveision ye want tae gang back til (lats ye see the page as it wis)
• dab on "edit"
• Ye shuid get a message sayin "WARNIN: Ye'r editin an oot-o-date version o this page" or something o the like -- ignore it
• Pit "rv" or "revert" or "pitten back" or some such in the edit summary
• Click "Hain page". This'll pit the page back tae hou it wis afore.

Howp this helps, Mendor 13:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

hello. IM not sure how to use this site yet but im sure ill get through it ok.

New contributer

Sorry if its bad policy to write at the top of the page (but as these talk pages get so long eventually, i would suggest its the best way of seeing whats the latest news to read). Im going to attempt to add to some of the stub articles here (ive already had a go at articles on Islam and Muslims). Please (anyone who is serious) feel free to correct any errors as im doing this more as an impetus to others here to help them expand the Scots Wikipedia.80.192.59.202 16:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! A dae no ken Scots. But, A hope A can help! --Kikimora

Och dinna fash yersel! Juist breinge on in - awbody else dis.

Guuid ta see summat on Wikipaedia aboot Scots. --Spe88 09:13, 29 Dizember

Thank ye. Fowks really shuidna ower leuk this site. --Kikimora

2005 (UTC)

I dinna ken much Scots, A'm frae Aberdeen! I didnae lyk the vandalism an the main page, som fawk hate the Scots an aw. OchAyeTheNoo 11:50, 10 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Scots Wiki?

Whit why English in a Scots wiki? -- Anon

It's early days yet. We still hae to chynge a deal o interface text ower tae Scots. -- 134.132.167.123 18:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dutch

Could someone please add Dutch under the wikipedias with over 50,000 articles. I'm incopetent to do so, as I do not speak Scots. Caesarion 15:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On a slitely related note, I have to say I am very excited by this Scots wiki. We have a small, but dedicated, band of merry men, with the right mixture in there of enthusiam and expertise, combined with a wonderful language. I have a feeling that this Scots wiki is going to shoot up the list. In fact, I can envisage this wiki having, rather shortly, hundreds of articles. BTW, I appreciate the irony of writing this particular post in English, but I beg you; I have to be off out in a minute, :and I don't have enuff time to check my words and grammar to try to make this as good a Scots as I can :) BryanAJParry

Yoruba Wikipedia

Hi... I thought you guys might be amused that I copied the mainpage to the Yoruba Wikipedia. yo:... not terribly relevant, but amusing nonetheless. Also, I copied the mainpage here from fur: :p[ -Node ue

Good luck

Apologies for my inability to speak the Scots leid - I just wanted to say good luck and well done to you all. This looks like being one of the fastest expanding Wikipedias - can I suggest someone informs en:Wikipedia:Signpost when it hits 100? EnOpenToppedBus 17:05, 15 Julie 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not. :) BryanAJParry

Hello,

I'm sorry if I don't speak in Scots here. I just want to encourage your work about a Scots Wikipedia, showing that languages have a scientific and historical value and have nothing to do with politics, countries, or personal opinions. I'm Italian, and in my country there are many languages (as Neapolitan, Venetan or Sicilian) which are still seen as dialects of Italian by the average citizen, just because these people don't know that these languages come directly from Latin (as well as Scots doesn't come from English, but Scots and English come both from Old English), so they are not "Italian spoken by uneducated people".

See you in the Venetan Wikipedia. Eynar (collogue)13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan-dabbie-dozie! 100 airticles

weel, 105 the nou (an A lee'd aboot ne'er uisin fan-dabbie-dozie again, by the by, juist that "w00t" didna seem gey appropriate in Scots ;-) ) Mendor 21:39, 19 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations to all who have worked quickly to reach this point. I've added Scots to the list that feeds into the multilingual portal at http://www.wikipedia.org (though it will probably take ages before it propagates to the real page). Trilobite 11:26, 20 Julie 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to extend my congratulations to the Scots community for achieving this milestone. I believe that free and open projects such as Wikipedia have an important role in documenting language (a role particularly important for minority languages such as Scots), providing resources for languages (particularly to learners) and promoting languages. Perhaps, in twelve months time, we shall be celebrating links to Scots Wikipedia on many other project's Main Pages due to it reaching the 1000 article milestone. Good luck, OldakQuill 04:28, 23 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Weel, gin w00t isnae richt, whit aboot wh00p-d3-d0 ? An I think that ye suid only get ti use that phrase agin aifter screivin an airticle on The Krankies, <grin>. -- Derek Ross 05:45, 23 Julie 2005 (UTC)

How comes the list of articles has now gone down to 85??? BryanAJParry

Na. It seys 127 airticles on ma brouser juist nou. -- Derek Ross 17:38, 27 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Lawland Scots

Scots language? Try Scots languageS. Like Gaidhlig and Doric. Or is this just more cultural imperialism?

Apairt fae Doric bein Scots the lave is abilins juist force o habit. Maist awbody is cantie eneuch referrin tae it as Scots. Nae hidden agenda nae conspeeracy. -- Anon

A gree wi the anonymous comment abuin. A hailly uphaud the Gàidhlig. (Canna spaek it awfu weel, but A'm aye tryin.) But cryin this leid A'm writin the nou Scots haes an awfu lang history. Maist fowk, whan ye say "the Scots language", wad jalouse ye war talkin about this leid here. The'r nae cultural imperialism here; in fac' baith Scots an Gaelic shuid be resistin whitiver cultural imperialism the is thegither, as twa prood leids o Scotland. Mendor 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: The'r nae muckle sense in cryin hit Lowland Scots tae sinder it frae Gaelic, acause thon wad suggest ye'r settin it up in opposítion tae Highland Scots, an whitiver Highland Scots is, it isna Gaelic.

Aye richt eneuch, awbodie cantie eneuch cries it "Scots", sae ye winna mind me screevin an airticle aboot Scots Gaelic, wi the teetle "Scottis" wull ye? Onywye, why's the airticle in the Scots section say "Gaelic leid" in the steid o Scots Gaelic? Is it nae "Scots" eneuch likesay? --Iggypop 16:20, 22 Julie 2006 (UTC)

For Gaelic, tak a keek at the Gaelic Wikipedia. For Doric, this is the ane ye're aifter. For cynical moaning, speir at Usenet. -- Derek Ross 17:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

556 Airticles

We (whit wey dae ye uiss wir) hae nou 556 airticles! wir anerly 444 awey fae makkin hit tae the 1000 + airticle leet! Nou Uiserr

1255 as of 6 Jan 06.

1,857 noo! That's ootstuandin, an aw! OchAyeTheNoo 12:44, 10 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Interface

I apologise again for not speaking Scots, but I haven't the knowledge. The interface needs to be translated, but to do that the translations need to be in place. I think this would be best done as a community collaboration, rather than individual effort, due to the variations in spelling. These are some of the translations I have come up with, please change them if wrong:

History tag = Bygane maks

Navigation = Wice (wise, wyse)

Main Page=Main Page

Innin

Community portal=Commoun portal

Common Ingang

Current events=News

Gaun on the nou

Recent changes=Recent changes

Recent cynges

Random page=Random page

Allevolie

Help=Help

Need a haund?

Donate = Propine

Go=Go

Gang

Search=Grape(OR Graip)/Serch/Search

Rake

Toolbox = Tuilbox /Tuilkist

In case you (or anyone else passing by) wasn't aware, the full set of messages in the MediaWiki namespace can be seen at Special:Allmessages. They each have their own talk pages, but it might be a good idea to set up a general page for discussion of the interface. Actually it's probably time to set up some equivalent of the village pump so that these discussions don't need to take place on the talk page of the main page. Derek Ross is making good headway into the interface translation. Trilobite 19:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, TB. That was my lunch hour. I'll get back to it this evening after work. Yes we need a general discussion area, not just for the interface but to agree on admins and a bureaucrat or two. The Mercat Cross would be my choice. For the moment I've just asked for myself and Mendor to be admins because we're the native speakers and we need the extra rights to work on the interface but we need to discuss this sort of thing properly so that everyone's happy with the end result. -- Derek Ross 19:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gey appreciate, Derek, cheers. Mercat Cross is a fan-dabbie-dozie* name fir it. A'll shuid coud owerset a wheen o the interface pages, or ither things needin owerset, in the comin days. Anither thing A think we need is a Wikipedia:Spellin an grammar page, mair for the Talk/Collogue element o it -- it teuk seiven hours fir the first argument about spellin an siclike tae come up, an A think it'd be better tae get onie debate that's needin tae be haed out in the open.

* A'll try tae keep ma uise o this wird doun tae a minimum... — Mendor 21:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, is it "preview", or shid it be whit it wis: "foreleuk"? A gree we cannae gang owerboard wi the new words, bit A think if a smaa nummer like "byleid"- A think it's a neologism- can be tholed, e'en loved, then why cannae "foreleuk"? BryanAJParry

Bryan, A pit "foreleuk" in, but than A got "cauld feet" an teuk it oot again. It didna seem tae fit as a noun (noon?). "Shaw foreleuk" (that cuid be chynged juist tae "Foreleuk" o coorse), "This is a foreleuk an haesna yet been hained" an the like didna soond richt tae me. Forbye, A feel that wi aa the Frainch influence on Scots, thare maun be a word for "preview". Basically A got an attack o the Ander-Saxon worries again. But gin "foreleuk" wad indeed be loed, than it can certies gang back! Mendor 5 Julie 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Hou aboot scance ? Mendor 5 Julie 2005 22:41 (UTC)

or e'en scance ower?

Jimmy 6 Julie 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Ay! :D BryanAJParry

Interwiki

Can an admin add simple: ar: id: ms: bs: bg: ca: cs: da: de: en: et: el: es: eo: eu: fa: fr: gl: ko: he: hr: it: ka: lv: lt: hu: nl: ja: no: nn: pl: pt: ro: ru: sk: sl: sr: sh: fi: sv: th: vi: tr: uk: zh: to the end of the main page? Rich Farmbrough 13:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design

Guid ta see Scots Wikipedia! A mak website designs an wad help if'n ye be tellin' whaur to help. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Ma Collogue) (Ma Contreibutions)}

Lesser Used languages of the UK?

Can we change that to "Other languages of the UK & Ireland? Just for accuracy's sake? Sorry for not using Scots. I only have a bit of Ulstèr-Scotch.

That bit Ulstèr-Scotch will be Scots:-)

84.64.21.33 16:24, 27 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Or o the Breetish Isles? Wi the Isle o Man an the Channel Isles? 81.20.184.52 16:40, 27 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

duin Mendor 16:44, 27 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

A question about the name

I'v not been keeping up with Scots for a while and have forgotten most of what I knew - which to elaborate wasn't much to start with. Anyway that is the reason why I am writing this in English.

I'm not sure that we should use the "æ" in our title thing because while I don't know much about it I know it makes the "ee" sound, and I thought this would be Wiki-pAd-iah.

Also I found out (from the English wikipedia) Scots was once called Inglis. Inglis was never the way to say English in Scots. Nou Uiserr 07:53, 26 Mairch 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nou Uiserr,

Aboot the "æ" -- A di' ken aboot onie ither bodie but A say [wɪkipidia] (i.e. wi-ki-PEED-i-ah) sae the æ fits, an it wad be the historically richt spellin o -pædia words in Scots A'd think.

Aboot Inglis: A wad think (A'm no shuir aboot this, mibbe Derek or 84.135'll can correct me) that Inglis wis uised at a time whan Scots/Northumbrian English an Soothren English wisna that distinct, an thay war aw seen as the same leid. Sae Inglis wad hae referred tae aw the Anglic dialects o Breetain at the time. Later on A think Scots gat the name Scottis an English Inglis. But A'm no shuir aboot that. Onieroad A dinna think we shuid be uisin Inglis in oor writin acause A dinna think oniebodie says Inglis the day -- we shuid juist cry it English, same as it's sayed.

Cheers -- Mendor 11:51, 26 Mairch 2006 (UTC)

A aye uise English (pronoonced Ing-lish raither nor Ing-glish). A've nivver bin that comfortable uisin Inglis masel. Tae tell ye the truth A've aye thocht o it as an auld-farrant spellin but A'm nae gaun tae fash masel ower it gin onie ither bodie wants tae uise it. -- Derek Ross 04:04, 20 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Norman is a "lesser-uised leid o the Unitit Kinrick"

Could someone add the Norman wikipedia to the list (nrm:)? It's spoken in the Channel Islands (technically not part of the UK, but neither is Man—the Channel Islands have a similar status to the Isle of Man), and is (in the form of Jèrriais) a recognized regional language of the British-Irish Council. 208.187.181.2 09:01, 20 Apryle 2006 (UTC) (= Lé C'valyi d'Jade)

Do I have the spelling right (Nouormand)? Mendor 09:29, 20 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's it in Jèrriais. 128.187.0.165 21:27, 21 Juin 2006 (UTC) (= Lé C'valyi d'Jade)

The flag on the main page...

...should be changed to Image:Flag of Scotland.svg, porbably. Thanx. 68.39.174.238 05:22, 30 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Thanks -- chynged. Mendor 11:34, 30 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Ither wikis?

Gid someane add links ti other wikimedia -projeicts ti the main paige? --Icepenguin 05:46, 6 Julie 2006 (UTC)

This is a link ti inglish veirsion o link -template. en:Template:WikipediaSister --Icepenguin 05:59, 6 Julie 2006 (UTC)

Page that Shows All Articles

There used to be such a page: where has it gone? Bryan 82.44.212.6 20:10, 23 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Hae a keek at Special:Allpages. -- Derek Ross 02:19, 24 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, Derek. Must be going mad. Bryan 82.44.212.6 13:56, 24 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Formattin

Okay, is thaur onethin byordinair we maist dae tae pit aa oor airticils i' tha alphabetical (an ither) indexes? Or shid A jist stairt daein it nou? BryanAJParry

A sey it agane. (an Wha are tha administrators?)BryanAJParry

Sorry A didnae get back tae ye earlier. The admins is me an Derek. The'r an autaematicallie generatit leet o airticles in alphabetical order here, but a fou alphabetical index is mibbe owerkill the nou (an outwi ma technical abilitie, A wad think) — Mendor 15:47, 25 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Mendor, an sorry gin A seem a bit impatient, it's jist at A'm dead keen tae get wirkin on tha Scots wiki. BryanAJParry

FORBY!!!!A keep forgettin whaur tha alphabetical index is. It isnae clearlie shawn on tha main page. BryanAJParry

Wikipedia:Alphabetical_Index -- so difficult! Why not link it from your user page? Of the only 5 Wikipedias where it exists other than this one (Italian, Korean, Polish, Icelandic, and English), only four link it from the mainpage, and it was difficult to find on the Icelandic and Italian mainpages.

I really don't think we need an alphabetical index at all until we have a fair amount of articles. None of the Wikipedias that have it have less than 1000 articles, and with the exception of Icelandic all of them have more than 10000 articles. --Node ue 23:09, 25 Jui 2005 (UTC)

There isn't much point in having an alphabetical index at all I don't think, even in en. The search box performs the function that an index would in a print encyclopedia. I would say the most important thing to stop articles getting 'lost' is to make sure they are linked from other articles, and are put in a category that forms part of the overall category tree. This allows readers to navigate around the entire encyclopaedia without orphaned bits being hidden from view unless you know the name of the article or look it up in Special:Allpages. Trilobite 23:42, 25 Jui 2005 (UTC)

I disagree VERY strongly with this decision. BryanAJParry

Again, most major Wikipedias don't have one. German, the second-largest Wikipedia, has none. Same with Spanish, French, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Russian, and other similarly-large Wikipedias. There is no real need for an alphabetical index. If you know the name of a page, you can type it in and press ging, if you don't, then you can use the category system. Why would you want to look up a page by the first two letters?? --Node ue 06:37, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay, I wasn't trying to make a decision though, as I'm not a Scots speaker and it's certainly not my place to make decisions about how things should be done on this wiki. I just think that manually putting together and trying to maintain an alphabetical index is overkill, as the software does it automatically at Special:Allpages. Also, once you start getting too many of these indexes people will write articles and forget to list them, so someone will need to keep patrolling and listing things appropriately because others haven't bothered. There used to be a list of people by name on en (probably still is) but you can bet only a fraction of the biographical articles are actually listed there. Once there are so many articles on Special:Allpages that it's impossible to keep track of them all on that page, people can use the box at the top to find articles beginning with "gl" or whatever. This seems to provide all the functions of a manually updated index with none of the hassle. Trilobite 15:25, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

It daes nae hairm tae hae an alphabetic index (an I like the leyoot) sae cairry on gin ye want til. Houaniver ye shuid mind that there's a link tae "aa pages" on the byordinar pages. -- 68.147.167.72

Weel we'v got a few dozen airticles nou, an it's stairtin tae get raither hard tae leuk for ony parteecular airticle at A wint. Sae hou aboot that index nou? :) BryanAJParry

Bryan, this link, Special:Allpages aaready gies ye an index tae aa pages alphabeticallie but sin ye are sae stieve on the subjeck, I think that ye shuid mak ane oniegate. I likit yer layoot an ye cuid eik it ti Leet o leets. -- Derek Ross 5 Julie 2005 15:19 (UTC)

Spellins

4th Aug. 2005: A propone we muive aa tawk aboot spellins tae the collogue page o this airticle: http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipaedia-Scots%27_offeicial_dictionar. BryanAJParry

Misc.

A see at tha bottom o this edittin/cheingin page some spellins A'v nae seen afore, an Am' nae dead shuire they're richt. Whit is that "g" daein at tha hind pairt o "promising"? BryanAJParry

Inglish o Inglis?

Whit ane o thaim twa spellins (Inglish o Inglis) is best? --Saforrest 17:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the Dictionar o the Scots Leid "English" is the correct term and "Inglish" is the old-fashioned way of doing it. --81.146.29.253 19:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But "Inglis(h)" fits the pronounciation better. BryanAJParry

An "auld-farrantness" is aften guid whan it comes tae Scots — Mendor

Yes, Mendor. Copyin Inglis spellins leik whaur its nae appropriate tae dae so (leik whaur tha spellin wis copyit fae Inglis, an are no true Scottis spellins) seems a wee gyte. BryanAJParry

Onywey, A vote for Inglish (as a compromise). BryanAJParry

Houaniver, English is the wey the RRSSC dis it, an we'v been guid aboot follaein that up tae nou. No shuir whit tae dae nou. Mendor 21:21, 19 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Vocabular

Curious as to why words like "fae" and "yearhunner" seem to keep being replaced by "frae" and "century". Cheers, Bryan BryanAJParry 22:03, 30 Januar 2006 (UTC)

No one...? 82.44.212.6 23:29, 6 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Sairy for late answer. It's 84.135 that's daein it, an he kens whit he's daein (tho he micht like tae repone tae this speir hissel?). A think "Yearhunner" is bein chynged acause it's a "madie-uppie-wirdie" (quo 84.135), an A think "fae" is bein chynged tae "frae" acause, awtho there plentie fowk that says "fae" (me, for stairters), it's aesier tae spell it "frae" an hae fowk like me elide the "r", nor tae spell it "fae" an expect fowk tae eik in the "r". HTH -- cheers, Mendor 00:11, 7 Februar 2006 (UTC)

A dinnae think it is fair tae get rid o aw the "fae"s. The Sctos wiki isnae about imposin ane kin o Scots ower aw ithers, is it? A do unnerstaund the pynt anent "yearhunner", tho. :)82.44.212.6 22:24, 11 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Hae a leuk tae writin Scots.

I don't think the link answers anything, to be honest with you. In the beginning of this encyclopedia the policy was not to be biased against particular dialects. More specifically, certain words- like "fae"- were deemed fine. Why is that now not the case? 82.44.212.6 17:26, 12 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Sae faur as A ken it's aye still the case. 84.135.201.25 16:01, 14 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Ah, someone is breaking the rules then! *dramatic chord* Bryan 82.44.212.6 20:57, 16 Februar 2006 (UTC)

"Scrieve"

So, I note that folk seem to keep outtaking "scrieve" and putting, in its stead, "wrate". Now, I know both are acceptable in Scots, so what is the logic behind this? Is there a usage difference 'tween the words (like wark and wirk)? Bryan 82.44.212.6 14:02, 24 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Mebbes adae wi this bit o scrievin.

Hmm, the OED lists screeve as "slang" for "to write". Bryan 82.44.212.6 11:51, 25 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Gif ye luik for "skrive" in the OED, that isna said tae be slang, though it is markit as archaic (wi the meanings "describe" an "write"). On the ither haund, the OED is a dictionary o Inglis an nae o Scots, even though it contain some Scots wirds. -86.133.48.161 11:46, 16 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Chyngin the table o contents ower tae Scots fra Inglis

Hi all, A'v fixed the mainpage up a wee bit so it's a bit less depressin the noo, but the templates A used ain't trully in the Scots leid, so A hope someone can cheinge em owwer for me. (yes, I know that's not "real scots") --Node ue 21:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where are the "Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology Browse Wikipedia · Article overviews · Alphabetical index · Other schemes"? Where are they going to go? BryanAJParry

What do we need those for? No other Wikipedia has them. Except en:. --Node ue 22:57, 25 Jui 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it might be useful to have an alphabetical index link, or a link to a list of all articles on the front page. As it is, we have around 20 articles, and I can only access the four that are linked to on the front page. There is no explanation or clear link to the rest (altho I did access it once, I can't now find it). IF **I**, a worker on this wiki, can't find it, what chance has any other man? BryanAJParry

But you're not looking for any specific article?? Then why would you need an alphabetical index? If somebody wants to look up "Scotland", they can type it in the rake box and press "ging". --Node ue 06:34, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

I like to idly browse encyclopaedias. BryanAJParry

A hae bin makkin pages, sic as days o the year pages, that is in the Leet o leets. Forby, monie airts gang nae place the nou. --Colin Angus Mackay 5 Julie 2005 19:14 (UTC)

Acceptable Variances

Perhaps, eventually, we should draw up a list of acceptable dialectal and spelling forms, so as to clearen things and help newcomers. For instance, "frae, fae" and so forth. But, whatever we do, I don't think we should bother getting bogged down with this kind of detail at the moment; wait a while. BryanAJParry

Hi Bryan,

Hae a leukie at Wikipedia talk:Spellin an grammar for the debate on spellins an that. Gin we end up follaein the RRSSC there willnae be mony o thir acceptable variances (but there will be twa-thrie, "fae/frae" bein ane o thaim, tho the RRSSC dis hae a preference for frae). Mendor 11:04, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

When A'm speikin A aye uise "fit", "fan" and "fae" masel sith that's the Doric wey. Bit fur screivin here A've bin uisin "whit", "whan" and "frae", nae for personal preference, bit fur tae fit in mair wi "standard" Scots an in parteicular the RRSSC "standard". A think that it's a burden that we hae tae thole fur the guid o the project. -- Derek Ross 16:31, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Hi Derek, the way I understood it, "wh" is to be pronounced "f" in Doric, in all siteatons. --Node ue 00:26, 30 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Aye, that's the wey I read it: "wh" on the page, "f" in ma heid. In South Island, New Zealand there wis that mony Doric speikin settlers that some o the placenames doon there are spelt wi "wh", but pronoonced wi "f", sae it's nae juist me. -- Derek Ross 00:32, 30 Jui 2005 (UTC)

A'm no so shuire, Derek. Monie leids hiv spellin differs atween the byleids... Inglis even his US vs. UK spellin, an thaur isnae onie byleid reason for that, jist a differ o opeenion on whit is "better". A think a smaa nummer o byleid differs is good, nae, required. An it his forerunners. BryanAJParry

Bryan, the Inglis exemplar is ain o the raisons that A want juist the ae standard spellin and byleid here (whitever it micht be). There's been ower monie pyntless argiments aboot US/UK spellin on en an A'd like to nip that sort o thing in the bud on sco, gin we can, sith there's een mair potential here fur variance an the discord that gings wi it. -- Derek Ross 17:43, 26 Jui 2005 (UTC)

I Disagree. :) If we draw up a list saying the following x are acceptable variations, then there can be no arguments (as the rules are clearly outlined). The fact that some folks have argued about US/UK spellings goes to show how truly pathetic some folks are. BryanAJParry

NEVER SEEN "collogue" before. Derek...? BryanAJParry

DSL defeinition. It's uised in the RRSSC an aa, tae mean a talk, a meetin, etc. Mendor 16:41, 27 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Aye. It's ain o thon words that's mair uised in screivin nor in speikin. -- Derek Ross 18:41, 27 Jui 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that acceptable spelling forms need to be listed. I've just had the article on Ceity o Embro changed from one spelling to another, but without changing the article title, and breaking a template link in the process. So, to start the ball rolling - "Ceity" o "Ceety" and "Embro" or "Edinburrie" --Colin Angus Mackay 21:32, 28 Jui 2005 (UTC)

I think if one types in "Embro", it should redirect you to "Edinbur(gh/rie)". BryanAJParry

Wikipedia talk:Spellin an grammar. We think we'r gaunae gang wi the Report an Recommends o the Scots Spellin Comatee. As A unnerstaun it, that document caas for "ceity". (English cognates wi an < i >, but pronounced /i/ in Scots, get spelt <ei> in the Scots words. So ceity, meinister, poleitics (but jeely, seeven -- spelt wi an <e> in English)).

A think the ensample o this chiel gaun roond an chyngin aa the "ceities" tae "ceeties" shaws why haein "acceptable variations" isna sic a guid idea. E'en gin we did hae a leet o acceptable variations, thare wad be arguments. It teuk seeven hoor afore the first argument cam up. It's sad but it's true. Spellin can be even mair o an emotive eissue in Scots nor in English. A think it's important we settle on ae staundart tae be conseistently applyed. Disna mean we'll aa haud tae aa o it aa the time, o coorse, but the hail pynt o a Wiki is that fowk can correct that. We maunna get intae edit wars ower it tho, an I can foresee that. Mendor 22:23, 28 Jui 2005 (UTC) (P.S. Nae idea aboot Embro/Edinburgh/etc.)

No. Acceptable variances doesn't work.. because we don't have an acceptable variances list!! As I already said, where Scots speakers pronounce the word the same way (or where we can subsume two pronounciations in one spelling), we should. Hence why I now use, for instance, "aa" instead of my former "aw". However, there are some dialectal variations- the aforementioned "fae", for one- which I am not prepared to give up. What is going on now has nothing to do with dialectal variation; so long as key dialectal terms and spellings (=different pronounciations) are kept, I shall be happy. So, I support enforcing the report's recommendations, BUT with one or two additionals to allow for dialects to continue. BryanAJParry

"Wale page allevolie"

Am fae Scotland (Ayrshire) an a canny work oot whit this is meant tae mean? -- Anon frae Ayrshire

Wale ........ Choose or Select

page ........ page

allevolie ... randomly or at random

Cheers -- Derek Ross 07:37, 16 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for the use of English; but I'm curious about what seems to be implied by the above exchange - is there a concious effort here to use unique but possibly more "obscure" Scots words instead of ones that seem to be the same or similar to the English, even at the expense of understanding by most speakers? Or is it just that these words would not be so obscure if it weren't for the pressure of English? --86.135.217.213 23:12, 2 Februar 2006 (UTC)

No problem. For your convenience, I'll reply in the same language. And thanks for asking the question. I think that it's got an interesting answer.

It's not that we particularly want to be obscure -- just the opposite really. The trouble is that vocabulary that is used for normal daily conversation differs from that used for writing. That's true for English as much as for Scots. Nobody should aim to talk like a book and a book that's written too colloquially for its topic can sound pretty odd too. It's no big deal in English where we are so used to written English that we don't even notice the much larger vocabulary that it uses compared to spoken English. However most people who speak Scots (myself included) hardly ever have a chance to read or write it, so we are much more likely to come across words or phrases that are unfamiliar when we do so. That's what happened here. One of the great things about reading (in any language) is that you learn words that you never, well hardly ever, hear in daily conversation.

From my personal experience, I can say that despite speaking with and listening to Doric speakers for the last forty-odd years, I still learned a good few new words when I first read Lorimer's New Testament in Scots -- I made good use of my Scots dictionary to begin with. And not because he was trying to be obscure; rather it was because he was writing on topics which just don't normally form part of everyday conversations so he was using vocabulary that I had never needed before. I suppose that you could take the easy way out and just use English for concepts that you don't know Scots words for -- but it doesn't seem right to do that when there are Scots words which could be used and which might well add to the vocabulary of any Scots speaker.

Another example that springs to mind is the poetry of Robert Burns and of Alexander Pope. Both use 18th century poetic vocabulary and I enjoy reading both: they're great poets. But I often come across an unfamiliar word in a Burns poem whereas I rarely do so in a Pope poem. Now both poets use relatively obscure words in their respective languages from time to time so what's the explanation? Well it's purely because I have a much greater knowledge of written English than of written Scots. I'm sure that that's true of most Scots speakers owing to lack of exposure to written Scots. In my opinion, the only way to fix it is to read and write more Scots. To go back to your two alternatives, I suppose the foregoing implies that, yes, there is a conscious effort to use Scots words, even when it makes understanding a little more difficult in the short term, and, yes, some of these words are only obscure because of the everyday pressure to use English for written topics. -- Derek Ross 05:06, 3 Februar 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your reply; that makes a lot of sense. --86.135.217.213 00:46, 4 Februar 2006 (UTC)

anonymous user changing spellings under guise of fixing grammar

Can somebody do something about this?? It seems like this guy (83.something....) is just changing all spellings to his preferred orthography without discussing it. We need to put our policy up right now before this gets any worse... let's use RRSSC now, and try to change existing spelling sto RRSSC. We should make our policy clear so we don't hae problems like this in tha future.

Yes, this is very annoying. I mean, if you ARE gonna muck around with the spellings, at least do it in the open so we can see who you are. I support a policy whereby we follow the committee's recommendations, but, as I say above, with perhaps some TINY alteration. BryanAJParry

LALLANS or LAWLANDS? I'm afraid to say "anon" has been editting again. Specifically, the Scots article. The language is called "lallans" because that is the pronounciation of the word "lowlands". It might be irregular, but it is a PROPER NOUN, and therefore is pretty much exempt from the regular rules of spelling. "Lallans" is the unanimously accepted spelling of that word- in the language sense- deriving from the spelling/pronounciation of "lowlands". Ergo, "lowlands" when not referrign to the language should also be spelt "lallans". This person has also altered "hunner" to "hunder" (despite the Committee's report saying this spelling is okay). Thing is, they've only altered "hunner" to "hunder" some of the time. The report says it is "spoken", and not "spak" (altho' this may be a dialectal variation I'm not aware of). Altho, I do like much of the editting work done by anon. However, I beg you please, PLEASE if you edit, do NOT do it anon., and do NOT go against what the report says. PLEASE. BryanAJParry

It is aboot tid that we shuid mak a stairt on the Spellin an grammar page. --16:38, 30 Jui 2005 (UTC)

For sure. Also, would it be practical to have the entire text of the report on the wiki? If not, we need to have all the points outlined, and maybe a wordlist. BryanAJParry

Upon further investigation, it seems that most of his changes reflect the Lothrian dialect of Scots (including "lallans" to "lawlands", which is an actual difference in pronunciation). --Node ue 5 Julie 2005 14:01 (UTC)

Aye. There's smaa doot we'll see a hantle o edits like thon but there's nae uise cryin them "vandalism", sith they'r daen i guid faith. We maun juist shrug an thole them. I wuidna een chynge them back immedantly. Gie it a puckle days an then set them back ti RRSSC (or the like), pyntin oot that it's oor policy ti uise a staundard spellin. -- Derek Ross 5 Julie 2005 15:12 (UTC)

A gree, Derek, bit EVENTUALLY we may hiv vandals. BryanAJParry

Sorry

But before I completely dive into writing pages in a language i don't entirely understand, could I be provided with a few translations? Specificly essential words like "and, only, also", numbers, etc. Really, I would like a working English-Scots glossary.Teàrlach 02:41, 4 Mey 2006 (UTC)Teàrlach

Specific answers to your questions

Bread and butter -- Breid an butter.

The only chap -- The ae chiel.

It was only for him -- It wis juist for him.

I also asked her a question -- A speirt at her forbye.

Numbers as nouns -- ane, twa, three, fower, five, sax, seeven, echt, nine, ten

Numbers as adjectives -- ae, twa, three, fower, five, sax,seeven,echt, nine, ten

There are plenty Scots -> English dictionaries about. Unfortunately English -> Scots dictionaries are thinner on the ground. Beyond that you need to learn the grammatical differences. Scotsgate is a good resource for learning Scots. -- Derek Ross 05:16, 2 Mey 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Scots Wiktionary would be a good idea. ;) I'd be willing to work on one. -- Mhirein

Scots Wiktionary

A 'hink 'at's a guid idea, if juist acause it'd gie the Scots-English-Scots dictionar somewhaur tae gang (it isna really appropriate for a Wikipedia). As A sayed thare tho, it wad kin o be reduplicatin wark that ither fowk haes duin -- mind you A daursay thon's true o a' the Wiktionaries.

Whit daes fowk think? Mendor 17:13, 30 Juin 2006 (UTC)

Soonds guid tae me, Mendor. Tho there's a puckle guid Scots-English dictionars ootby on the Wab awready. As A pynted oot abuin, whit's lackin is a guid English-Scots dictionar. -- Derek Ross 05:10, 7 Julie 2006 (UTC)

Is this real?

No offence if it is, but it just looks like the kind of "Scottish" I'd expect out of someone in a tatran beret with ginger wig to talk, ie:English in a "Scottish" accent. eg:

• Guid tae see ye at the Scots Wikipaedia, the first encyclopaedia in the Scots leid!
• This is a smaa edit
• The'r nae text on this page the nou

Apologies if this is real, I just always though Scots and English had developed more seperately.

Boffy b 13:01, 11 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have corrected some of your miconceptions... -- Derek Ross

You could try having a read of the Scots leid article, or the Scots language article in the English Wikipedia, which you should find informative. Trilobite 04:03, 13 Julie 2005 (UTC)

Also, it is slitely worth noting the following things: 1. many of the articles are written by learners of Scots, not natively speakers, so sometimes arent as "broad" as one might expect. 2. Not all Scots is uberbroad. 3. The difference between Scots and English is arguably equivalent to that between the various dialects in Scandinavia. BryanAJParry

Or Bolton an Birmingham, I jus hanna considered English as a "dialected" leid, looking at it frae the inside. Is Scandinavian dialectation similar? Boffy b 22:38, 24 Julie 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly an arguable point. Look at translations of the Lord's Prayer, or better, articles of the declaration of human rights, in the various dialects and "languages" of Scandinavia. The similarities should strike you :D BryanAJParry

Ah rilly dunna think Scots is a diffrun leid

So why dussa ave is un Wikipaedia? Is just a diffrun wae tu spick th' sem leid. 24.243.188.42 06:54, 8 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Jalouse whit ye like. Juist mind that gin ye eikit this tae the English Wikipedia an stairtit uisin words like jalouse or leid, ye'd suin be telt that it wisna English. Faith, some fowk isna happy whan we uise the English word outwith, lat alane Scots words. -- Derek Ross 08:25, 8 Januar 2006 (UTC)

"Is just a diffrun wae tu spick th' sem leid." Ay! juist like thae Portuguese spicks Spanish a diffrun wae and Norwegians spicks Danish a diffrun wae and Slovaks spicks Czech a diffrun wae ... O coorse gaun bi yer spellin its plain as parritch ye're no acquent wi the Scots leeterary tradeetion sae its aiblins mair nairae nebbit haivers comin oot an no a weel-foondit ken o the maiter. No awa an gie aw thae Wikis an the ithers that wisna mentiont grief.

84.135.201.172 14:12, 8t Januar 2006 (UTC)

Aire thar rilly nee Scots oo canna understend Inglish? Is jes Scots withau the silly eccent 24.243.188.42 19:14, 8t Januar 2006 (UTC)

Dis fowk uisin thair ain leids gar ye grue or ocht? Ye shoud aiblins speir at thaim that spicks Gaeilge, Gàidhlig an Cymraeg gin thay canna understend Inglish aither.

84.135.202.14 21:26, 8t Januar 2006 (UTC)

I musse say, is fun pertendin te be a Scotsman, ye jess hev te talk rill funny. 24.243.188.42 01:30, 9 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Except that the 'rill' (assuming its meant to be the equivalent of 'real') gives you away as an American straight away. Still, thanks for not screeching Scaatchman at us. puzzle 13:47, 9 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the English, chaps. Comments like this are silly, if understanmdable. Scandinavians often say they find it tricky to understand each others' spoken languages, but can understand the written form quite well. Even the Dutch can find they understand most written Norwegian or German! Being able to mostly understand it does not mean it is not a seperate language. But let us at last nip one thing in the bum: what is "language" and what is "dialect" is almost an arbitrary decision. They are both languages, it just so happens when you label it "dialect" it not only is slighted in the public's mind, but also denotes that the language is not different enuff to another language to warrant calling it "language". I think the difference between most kinds of Scots and most kinds of English is analogous to, for instance, Danish and Norwegian are to each other (altho I don't have data on this). In a sense, whether Scots is a "language" or a dialect of English is almost moot; Scots is in manifold forms is different enuff to make it tricky for English speakers to pull off a good Scots (and even then, the English speaker must know a fair deal about Scots). BryanAJParry 11:01, 23 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Weel said, Bryan. -- Derek Ross 05:41, 3 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I havent practised Scots in a while so I'll try English this time. All languages are "artificial, just as houses and towns are man made (or woman and man made). There is evidence of a 200 year period where a language known as Scots and closely related to English was the recognised (in Europe anyway) national language of Scotland, but since then it has to a degree stopped existing as a single recognised entity in many people's minds and that is clearly a major stumbling block (as many comments here demonstrate to the enthusists.) Alemaanisch speakers seem to view their language as a series of dialects rather than a language (though a language is really just a dialect with knobs on) yet they have their own wikipedia, as they use a form of language which they have every right not to be attacked or ridiculed on the talk page of their home page for.) Maybe if the term Lowland Scots or Lallans was to be used, despite its (or perhaps even because of its relatively modern creation as a language description), this would help people in Orkney and elsewhere feel less marginalised by this wiki's existence, despite their denial of the language title's pertaining to themselves. In fact wheneer anyone suggests a Scouse Wikipedia or a Mancunian one, Id ask the Scots proponents here to firstly consider that maybe there not being sarcastic (and that even if they are) there is in principal nothing wrong with any language variety (if Scousers etc have enough interest in doing it rather than suggesting one here as an attempt at derision} Scouse is in fact a valid and recognisable language, or "dialect" which someone somewhere may in fact have written a serious grammatical study thereof. (Ive got a Luxembourgish one that often looks amusing to me, but is a perfectly legitimate language grammar as well!)80.192.59.202 23:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke Wikipedia?

Nae it isna but this ane is;-)

Jimmy 15:13, 7 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. Why don't we just have an ebonics Wikipedia. Or a Cockney one! 24.243.188.42 03:29, 10 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Man, it's grand tae see fowk speiring if this Wikipedia is a joke. It minds me o the days whan the English Wikipedia haed juist a puckle airticles. Fowk were aye speiring if it wis a joke then. Changed days! But this troll kens the wey to bring them back. Guid man! -- 24.71.223.142 06:40, 10 Januar 2006 (UTC)

"Seriously. Why don't" the Portuguese no "just have" a Spanish Wikipedia or the Norwegians no "just have" a Danish Wikipedia or the Slovaks no "just have" a Czech Wikipedia? Hou for no juist trowe awa a speir anent thaim aboot it? A'm sair cuirious whit thir fowk haes tae say anent the maiter. ( -- User:84.135.213.210 15:36, 10t Januar 2006)

I'm fed up of hearing on this page that the situation between Scots and English is like Portugese and Spanish because Portugese is considerably more different from Spanish in almost every way eg grammar, vocab, phonology than Scots is from English and has been divergent from its common ancestor for far longer. Additionally the demand for a Portugese wiki is a lot higher since its something the majority of Portugese speakers might actually want to use whereas I imagine the number of Scots who would go to the Scots rather than English wiki would be exceedingly small. The two situations are in no way comparable. I'm not putting down Scots but PLEASE lets just keep it real here people.

And how about Asturianu or Plattdüütsch? ther both minority languages attempting to keep things real in their own way. government intervention has kept the position stable through education policy in Spain, Portugal, brasil and elsewhere. But the basic premise of the Spanish v portuguese argument still stands. Languages are not "naturally" static entities fixed in time, but artificial constructs, invented by states.80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A'v ae thing tae say aboot aw this: dinna feed the trolls. (A ken that pittin a comment here isna takkin tent o ma ain coonsel, but it needit sayin -- A'll back tae haudin ma wheesht nou.) -- Mendor 17:27, 10 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Now den. Am no' trollen, burrad luvteh no 'owteh star'eh scouse wikipaedia. Enee torts? - Baz

Weel, aince ye hae a puckle hunner years o published leeteratur, a wheen o related byleids, a weel recognised distinct graimar, vocabular an an orthography or twa, uise at ae time or anither by the coorts an the government, an mebbe een recogneetion by the EU, ye shuid be in a grand poseetion tae convince yer fella Wikipedians that the warld is ready for a Scouse wikipaedia. -- Derek Ross 05:42, 14 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Den is dat wo' Rab C Nesbi' yoosteh tork? Gaz

Aye, a wattered-doon Glesca byleid. Uised in ae form or anither bi prince an pauper aince. Mair like tae be pauper nor prince the day tho. -- Derek Ross 17:50, 14 Januar 2006 (UTC)

Is this a joke?

I think it's obvious it is, but I just wanted to be sure....

Aw thae fowk oot tae tak a rise o the Scots Wiki. A'm juist gled we're no darkies ...

Jimmy 19:18, 14 Februar 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out with the Joke Wikipedia

I decided to make myslef (somewhat) useful and I may help out this joke Wikipedia....

O-ho! aren't you the funny one, Sir! These jibes just get wittier and wittier. 82.44.212.6 22:25, 11 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Lemme machit one thing clear. Tha scots wikipedia isnae a joke. There's wabsteids dottit aa ower tha internet wha's got information aboot tha scots leid, an we're here fer a reason. sco.wikipedia.org is NAE a joke! Thor24 00:17, 12 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Some fowk aye thinks Scots leid upsteerers hivna haurd it aw afore. Mendor 15:37, 12 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what people might think, Scottish people are not retarded, most of them can read standard english, however people that insist on typing in Scots are actually....ARSEHOLES...its hugely embarassing, especially since....now this figure may astound you...100% of people who type in Scots language can read and type in English....so is this a waste of time? I think so. It is a dialect, and should be reserved only for Scottish literature. If you disagree then i assume you'd be ok with a cockney wikipedia and the likes...because thats the equivalent.

Unlike whit ye may hink us is no retardit, maist eh us cin read min, pure english and that eh? but maist folk that winny type like et eh? they're pure erseholes eh min? it pure gies us a beamer eh? cus ye perhaps winny ken es but aw cunt that can type in Scoats can type in English n'aw, its cause they actually speak English eh no? its a dialect min, no a language, git o'er yerselfs ya daft cunts --86.147.35.88 17:37, 18 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't get into this argument again. However I'll give it a go. (Typing in English, as you seem to think typing in Scots makes me a daft cunt.)

You say that it's hugely embarrassing. Why do you say so? Serious question. Is it because you think we're getting the Scots in the articles wrong in some way? If so, how do you think it can be improved? Or is it because you think expository writing in Scots is in some way inherently embarrassing? If so, why do you think that?

You're right that 100% of people that can type in Scots can read and type in English. So can 100% of people that can type in Gaelic. Are you going to go and tell the contributors at gd: that their Wikipedia is a "waste of time", that they're "arseholes" and "daft cunts"? Somehow I don't think so. Why are you against Scots speakers doing what they want with their own language? Why should a speech variety (that you seem to agree exists, distinct from English, regardless of whether it's a "dialect" or a "language") be reserved for literature only?

These are serious questions that I'd like to know the answer to. However if you're just going to call us arseholes again, then dinna bother, A can get cawed an airsehole at hame for naething if A want. Cheers, Mendor 19:15, 18 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Whether Scots is a "language" or a "dialect" is a matter of definitions. (I pay my words well; they can mean what I want them to, to paraphrase Humpty-Dumpty.) What matters is that Scots *is* used by some people (no matter what else they may use at other times). Esperanto is a constructed language, and Latin has not been extant as a primary language for a long time; both of them have Wikipedias of their own. Are they jokes? If you don't want to use Scots, fine - go away and leave alone those that do. Another perfectly valid reason for this Wikipedia's existence is as an educational tool for the learning of Scots. What's wrong with my coming here to learn Scots by reading the entries already written and trying to learn the vocabulary, spelling, and grammar of Scots by contributing new things? If those more knowledgeable of Scots and *working* on this Wikipedia were to have a problem with it, that would be one thing. But for someone not interested to come in and attack it seems just pointless. No joke! Aleta 01:32, 19 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame, tho, eh, cus the boy fae 86.147.35.88 can spik guid Scots, likes! Bazza 10:05, 19 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Ay it is. Unfortunate-like the puir sowel seeminly disna hae a ken o tradeetional leeteracy in the leid. A faut the schuils masel. Generation efter generation gaun aw reid faced wi a dose o the creenge at the thocht o uisin Scots as mair nor a filler atween sweirie wirds.

84.135.245.204 11:21, 19 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Well the thing is, im not big on Gaelic either, because only a tiny percentage of the population use that, but i think there are some folk that actually cant speak english in the isles and such, the issue i have with this page is that theres no need for it, i dont mind scots language when its used in a Burns poem or an Irvine Welsh book, thats part of our culture and i'm not going to deny that, its just that this is uneccessary, if you can all speak English (as a first language) then what is the point of this? If someone can justify it to me? --86.147.35.88 12:40, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Whit aboot thaim that speaks English (as a seicont language)?

84.135.197.70 20:04, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the language ever needs to be committed to text is for the sake of atmosphere in Burns and other Scottish lit. I speak with a Scottish accent and theres no way thats going to change but do you really really think that 'Guid to see ye' is considered a sincere greeting in Scotland? Incidently I don't think you can justify Latin wikipedia either, but i'm losing my desire to argue anyway --86.147.35.88 12:46, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Define "need".

The Scots (and Gaelic) Wikipedias don't "need" to exist. But there are a lot of people who consider Scots their native tongue and would like to see it break out of the literary ghetto it finds itself in. That we speak English as well is not the point.

I don't particularly see the point in the Latin Wikipedia either -- except in so far as it behaves as something of an international language, Esperanto but not as good -- but I'm not going to go onto la: and tell them that it's unnecessary. The contributors there are enjoying it, and web space is cheap.

Don't see the problem with "Guid tae see ye" at all -- would say it myself even in English-speaking mode -- although actually that could stand to be replaced with a more Scots-like phrase, "Fair fa ye" or something like that.

Incidentally, there are no monolingual speakers of Gaelic, even in the isles.

Cheers -- Mendor 13:49, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

PS Thank you for dropping the offensive language.

Aye, well i thought about it and really its none of my business what you people do, and i actually had a chuckle at the rangers page so while i dont agree with this whole set up, its really just nothing to do with me, but who can resist the lure of an arguement? --86.147.35.88 18:34, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

List o Joke Wikipaedias

Here a wee list o joke wikipaedias for them that needs sicna divert

• Luxemburgae
• Walloun
• Naipoletanae
• Asturae
• Siceelian
• Macedonae
• Wast Freese
• Nether Saxon
• Farae
• Allemanae
• Limburgae
• Yiddish
• Tok Pisin
• Lombardae
• Sardeenae
• Romansch
• Venetian
• Klingon

Silly Bugger 18:54, 14 Februar 2006 (UTC)

eh? What's this list supposed to proove? Is it ironic, or what? Anyway, here's a point: being English speakers (and thus having a language greatly different to other closely related ones, barring Scots, of course), many English speakers don't realise that a language doesn't have to be totally incomprehensible to speakers of another to be called a separate "language". I'm not sure if there are statistics on this, but If Scots has a slightly different grammar- which it does-, and has over x number of words not in common with English- and it has a lot of these-, and a separate literary tradition- which it has-, and a bunch of speakers (also true), then how is it a "joke" language? Bryan 82.44.212.6 07:26, 9 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Likewise, how is, for instance, Tok Pisin a joke? People who say such things are usually ignorant of language. Bryan 82.44.212.6 07:28, 9 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

The list is obviously tongue-in-cheek. The reaction of many English-speakers to Scots is that it's some kind of joke since they can understand quite a lot, if not, most of it. As you point out the usual experience of your average English-speaker renders them completely unaware of the concept of relatively mutually comprehensible related languages. Most of the languages in the list are varieties that are often thought to be "dialects" of some other more well-known language.

Of course if your average English-speaker were to look at them all they would see was a foreign language. If they knew, French, German or Italian for example, they would probably be able to understand quite a lot of some of them. Thus, the list provides those who consider this a joke wikipedia the oportunity to realise that its not unusual and reconsider their flawed thinking, or further opportunity to hone their ingnorance and attack other joke wikipedias.

84.135.242.146 11:37, 9 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Comparin Klingon wi Lallans dis nae guid either!!!

A hinna owre muckle a problem wi Limburgs, Farae an Yiddish, bit wikipedia in LATIN? Anglae (?) -Saxon? Volapuk? KLINGON?!?!--Iggypop 16:22, 22 Julie 2006 (UTC)

I know this topic is ancient but most of those wikis are definitely true languages. Excepl Klingon. OchAyeTheNoo 20:05, 19 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're taking the piss

As a born and bred Scotsman, proud of my country and heritage, I have to say I find this page a complete embarassment. Although you're probably the same people that think Tam Cowan's 'Offside' programme is hilarious. I love Scotland but this makes us look like inbreds, ken?

I concur on your views on Mr Cowan and his football related wit, however Is it not possible to in breed and come out speaking English? If not, please explain why?80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make you look like inbreds, but you personally do sound like an.... ENGLISHMAN. Bryan 82.44.212.6 18:14, 24 Julie 2006 (UTC)

So, Kenneth, let me get this straight. You're a born and bred Scotsman, proud of your country and heritage. And you've visited a site put together by other born and bred Scotsmen, proud of their country and heritage. And you've decided that the best thing that you can do to help, is to kick them in the nuts ? There's something not quite right about that picture. Remind me again. Who is it that's supposed to be taking the piss?

Oh my god he's using LOGIC! Bryan...you personally sound like a.....RACIST!...just for the record its not a seperate language, clearly you can use english, so...why don't you? just a huge waste of time and effort is all this page amounts to --86.147.35.88 12:34, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

Bryan is English so he gets to insult his own nation if he wants (though I'd advise him not to use Englishman as an insult even if he is one himself!).

You say "it's not a separate language" but then "clearly you can use English, so why don't you?" . If Scots is not a separate language from English then surely all the articles here are written in English, so why tell us to use English when that's apparently what we're doing anyway?

And as for a waste of time and effort: it's not your time and effort so why does it bother you?

Cheers, Mendor 13:57, 20 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

My proof that this is a joke wikipedia

Check out the Adam Smith article [1] (permalinked to refer to a specific version). What's up with that? Look at the final sentence. He is know as the

"Faither o Economics" or the "Faither o Capitalism" an aw.

"An aw"???? "AND ALL"???? How is that formal writing? It's obvious the writers of this are just trying to goof off. 24.243.188.42 23:51, 27 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated a typical mistranslation into English of a Scots phrase lol (it actually translates to mean "as well")80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How would a body put such and a thing over into formal written Scots?

It seems more like that's my proof that you don't have the Scots and is just trying to goof off.

84.135.247.208 09:08, 28 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Are ma een leein tae me ? Or is some foreign loon tellin us whit is and whit isna formal Scots ? An in slang English tae buit. Dis he nae ken that ye canna owerset word for word atween leids and expeck the results aye tae mean the same? "An aw" isna near as colloquial in Scots as "and all" is in English. -- 204.209.24.2 23:14, 28 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Colloquial? YOU'RE SPEAKING A VARIANT OF ENGLISH CONFINED TO A SMALL REGION. All of it is colloquial. You can't say that because it's a normal colloquialism, it's acceptable for formal writing. And besides, what is even included in the "aw"? "Father of Economics", "Father of Capitalism", "Father of ????" This is like the people who say "et cetera" to hide the fact that they can't come up with "cetera".

Oh, and quit pretending you understand my words. You don't speak English, remember? You speak Scottish, which is "different". (different, of course, in that it's English with a funny accent, and the words under that funny accent phonetically spelled). 24.243.188.42 11:39, 29 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Thanks tae ma braw Scots faimlie A ken Scots; thanks tae ma braw Scots eddication, A ken English, Latin an French. American slang like "goof off" disna ettle muckle tae me tho. A'll hae tae gang til ma dictionar for that ane. -- 204.209.24.2 23:48, 2 Mey 2006 (UTC)

an aw means "as well", not "et cetera". kent as [x, y, an z] an aw is how you would most naturally translate "also known as [x, y and z]". Your argument that Scots is just "English with a funny accent" would be better supported if you could actually interpret Scots correctly.

However, if you have better ideas as to what constitutes formal Scots writing, let's hear them. Mendor 14:37, 29 Apryle 2006 (UTC)

Could I just give a gentle piece of advice to our old friend here - IF YOU SAY SOMETHING INCREDIBLY STUPID IN CAPITAL LETTERS, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS STUPID. Forgive me, but you prove with everything you say that : a) you're not acquainted with Scots as a living language and have probably never set foot where it's spoken, b) you have no meaningful knowledge of the issues surrounding Scots, or other minority languages for that matter (at least the many that have some degree of mutual intelligibility with another tongue), and c) you have absolutely no interest in actually learning something serious about any of the above - yes, including the legitimate debate that has always gone on about whether Scots can most accurately be described as a distinct language, or as a dialect of English. Given this complete lack of knowledge/interest, why exactly are you getting so het up about this? Why not take a belligerent stand on a subject you actually care enough about to inform yourself properly on?

As an aside, the silliest thing you keep saying is that the contents of this Wikipedia are somehow the phonetic rendering of 'English with a Scottish accent'. The spoken language of the majority of people I know fits exactly that description - English with a strong Scottish accent - and if I rendered it phonetically it would look remarkably similar to what I am writing now, ie. standard English. The fact that a similar phonetic rendering of the speech of others I know - who possess a Scottish accent that is no stronger - would diverge significantly from standard English demonstrates by definition that, at the very least, there are dialect differences going on that have got nothing whatever to do with 'accent'. puzzle 18:59, 1 Mey 2006 (UTC)

How much would the discource dissapear if I noted that this guy is a dick? Teàrlach 23:37, 1 Mey 2006 (UTC)Teàrlach

Not sure. But I am a linguistics student, so am probably in somewhat of a position to say that I **KNOW** the bloke who started this thread is an idiot. Bryan 82.44.212.6 00:07, 3 Mey 2006 (UTC)

STOP ARGUIN bout this! Scots IS a leid, an that's it. --Icepenguin 17:22, 6 Julie 2006 (UTC)

A nice result

A nice result of this conversation started by a jerk is that in reading it, I have a much better understandingvof what an aw actually means. I've been thinking of it as like et cetera. Since I actually do want to understand something about Scots (unlike some other people on this page), I appreciate that. Aleta 01:59, 19 Dizember 2006 (UTC)

LOL

I really must say that I find this Wiki really funny. I've read this talk page and it's been stated a dozen times this isn't a joke, yet still...I'm amused. You say "Scots isna juist English written wi orra wirds an spellins." Yet, that's exactly what it looks like. English spelled in a funny way. I know it isn't, but I can basically understand everything in this wikipedia...it looks like Americans from the Southern states with British accents. I don't know how one would have an accent of an accent, but that's basically what it sounds like. A Southern accent multiplied by a British accent. Anyway, take care, and have fun. Hopefully you get some more and bigger articles up. -- (one editor that forgot to sign)

I find the same ease with Yiddish and Luxembourgisch! Both are side splitting fun to read:}80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the British accent? There's no such thing. -- (another editor that forgot to sign)

Strangely enough Russians have exactly the same reaction to Ukrainian: "It's just Russian with slang and bad spelling". They too find it funny. Cheers -- Derek Ross 18:27, 23 Julie 2006 (UTC)

ONCE AGAIN an imbecile who obviously has no knowledge of linguistics at all. I would point him to sundry books which recognise the separate languge, and/or "special" status of Scots, but they are so numerous it seems rather pointless. Bryan 82.44.212.6 18:11, 24 Julie 2006 (UTC)

And there are plenty of imbeciles who work in linguistics who think the opposite way. The division here is mainly nationalist, not linguisitic. People don't want to say they speak "Inglis" or "English", because their Scottish identity is marginalised. That's why Scots is a "language", but Geordie isn't, and why Slovakian is a "language", but Moravian isn't, and why Flemish is a "language" but Swiss German isn't to many folk (Flemish identity is more marginalised than Swiss German). I'm sure you can dig up pages to prove all of these are languages, but you can prove the opposite too. Do you think Shetlandic is a language? --Brian 14:43, 31 Julie 2006 (UTC)

Any speech variety is in fact a language, IE you are demonstrating the parallel bias to any linguistic nationalist. Please cite some linguists who refute the languages you have mentioned (and whether they happen to be from the neighbouring larger states:}}80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Brian, Shetlandic is a language. English is a language. Estuary is a language. Yorkshire is a language. They are all language. They are all different forms of language. If you mean are they "separate" to English, then that is irrelevant. As I allude to above, and have plainly stated elsewhere on this wikipedia- and indeed as you yourself more-or-less say-, the difference between "language" and "dialect" is kind of arbitrary, and often has to do more with politics than anything else. Breton, for instance, a CELTIC language, was once considered a "dialect" of French, a ROMANCE language (go figure). Given the fact that we can`t have wikipedias for every single form of language in the world, we should limit ourselves to national varieties. Scots is the national variety of language in Scotland (along with English and Scots Gaelic), and so should probably have a wikipedia of its own. For what it`s worth, very few, if any, linguists would actually say "yes, Scots most definitely is a completely different language to English!", mainly because the distinction between "dialect" and "language" is not really a real or meaningful one. Scots is certainly "different" to some other insular Germanic dialects, and it was once THE language of Scotland, and is still a national language of Scotland (albeit unooficially), therefore it is not a joke, and nor is this wiki. Bryan 82.44.212.6 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: To re-iterate, the point is not to try to answer the ridiculous question "Is Scots a language or is it not?", the point is that Scots is not absurd, stupid, "English with a funny accent", or any other belittling comments. It is a legitimate, national form of language, divergent enuff from its closest related national language as to warrant special respect and attention. Bryan 82.44.212.6 22:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the language spoken by en:shelties LOL. Seriously, though this wikipedia is a joke. There is no "language" as Scots, it is just English in a funny accent. I never would have thought Wikipedia would have such a thing. This is probably the worse Wikipedia in existence, either this or the discriminatory Bosnian wikipedia. Above, People respond to the English questions in "Scots" and everyone understands!

Have you ever studied Asturianu or Luxembourgisch, or Wallon, or Sylhetti, or Afrikaans, or Saterfriesisch, or Plattdüütsch, or Ladino, or Yiddish, or Sicilianu, or Veneto, or Galo, or Jerriais, or Aragonese? Please bother to do some reading on all of these first, and then get back to me. thanx:}80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is an extract from the French Wikipedia : "[France] est membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Elle est membre de l'Union latine, de l'OCDE, de la Francophonie et du G8." I understand that from beginning to end. I do not speak French. By your definition, this is apparently sufficient to prove that the entire French language must be just English with a funny accent. Having said that, if I were you I'd be cautious in assuming that 'everyone understands' the Scots answers to questions posted in English on this page. They may assume they do - that's not the same thing. Take another look at the dispute about the Adam Smith article for an example of an American English speaker who never doubted for a moment he understood a very simple Scots phrase he was using to support his argument - but as Mendor points out he had in fact entirely misinterpreted its meaning. How could such a thing happen? Because Scots is not English, with or without the now-famed 'funny accent'. All the same, thanks for boosting the article count of the 'worst Wikipedia in existence' by one with Mongols. With enemies like you, who needs friends - we'll make the 10,000 mark in no time! puzzle 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's been well established by now that the writers of the Scots wikipedia really believe Scots to be separate. I disagree, but I won't argue. Thing is, Scots Wikipedia is here. There is no point to this discussion. I don't know any Scots, but I'll help in anyway I can.--Fox Mccloud 22:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fox, since you don't know any Scots I'll use English. So you disagree that Scots is separate from English. I.e it's English. You obviously know English. Then you write you don't know any Scots. Surely if its English you must know Scots? 84.135.212.83 13:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Weel said, 84.135...weel said. OchAyeTheNoo 20:38, 20 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

HAHA!

We have a Wikipedia for a dialect! What's next, an Ebonics Wikipedia? 208.19.12.16 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Someone already made that "joke". 84.12.173.53 12:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And would an African American language not meet youre Anglo Saxon standards of linguistc purity??? that seems gey racist tae ma lugs80.192.59.202 00:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Scotsman myself and I find this Wikipedia to be a joke.

It's funny, yeah, sure... seeing all this stuff written in Doric makes me laugh... but if it's accepted that Doric Scots is a dialect, not a language in and of itself, why does it warrant its own Wikipedia?--89.240.179.181 20:10, 13 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

"But if it's accepted..." - there's the flaw in your argument. puzzle 00:19, 14 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

Doric's a dialec o Scots, an this is a Scots Wikipedia. Maist o the airticles arenae in the Doric onyweys. Bazza 10:09, 14 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

It isna sae muckle that airticles for ordinar isna in the Doric but the kin o written Scots here is pan-dialectal an seems tae be foondit on the spellin preenciples uised in tradeetional aichteent an ninetennt cenury Scots leeteratur. Fowk is juist expectit tae soond it conform tae their ain dialect.

O coorse the nou mony fowk disna ken a button aboot siclike, mony fowk's acquentance wi written Scots disna gang faurer nor Oor Wullie or the kin o uggsome sweirie wirds o Trainspotting.

This want o ken seems tae marrae itsel wi a want o mense. It wadna aye be fair tae faut a body for that, but thaim that's interestit in constructive creeticism shoud for ordinar ken a bit mair aboot whit it is they're creeticizin. No mony wants tae learn tho - an juist cairies on makkin airses o thairsels.

Thaim that wad like tae learn needna dae muckle mair nor hae a read o the bittie aboot writin Scots an aw the ither things it airts tae.

Jimmy 15:45, 23 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

Nit pickin

"Lesser-uised leids o the Unitit Kinrick: Gaeilge na hÉireann (Erse Gaelic) · Gàidhlig na h-Alba (Scots Gaelic) · Gaelg Vanninagh (Manx) · Cymraeg (Welsh) · Karnuack (Cornish) · Nouormand (Norman)"

- Wee point here, bit neither the Isle o Man nor Channel Isles are in the Unitit Kinrick. Also Cornish = "Kernuack/Kernewek/Kernowek/Curnoack".

Aye, isn't Isle o Man a part o Ireland?

The short of it: No (it is ruled by the Queen, called "the Lord of Man", independent of the United Kingdom).

You're right that neither the Channel Islands nor Man are a part of the United Kingdom. They are rather "Crown Dependencies" (being ruled by the Queen ["Lord of Man"/"Duke of Normandy"] in conjunction with local legislatures), and part of the British-Irish Council. It may be more appropriate to rename the header "Lesser-uised leids o the [British Isles]". 128.187.0.165 04:54, 6 Julie 2006 (UTC) (= Lé C'valyi d'Jade)

This place looks dead

What happened? It looks like there's hardly been an edit (excluding those done by bots) in days? What happen to Mendor, Ross, and all the others? Nou Uiserr 11:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It's simmer. A jalouse that aa the mensefu fowk is oot makkin the maist o the fine weather juist nou. We're nae deid yet, <grin>. Tak masel. I wis awa in Breetish Columbia the laist fortnicht, at the Calgary Hieland Gemmes aa day Setterday, an A'll be at the Canmore Hielan Gemmes an Ceilidh later the day. Come the winter it'll be suin eneuch tae wark on the Scots Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross 19:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A'm flittin back tae varsity in Embra an dinna hae internet in ma flat the noo, an A wis busy this weekend sae A cuidna get tae the librar an dae ma customary vandal-dichtin fae there. Thon's ma excuse... Mendor 11:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC) (PS Fine weather Derek? Haes bein awa in Canadae gart ye forget Scotland's weather, even in simmer? ;-) )

Richt eneuch, but A hae ma spies. Ma 15 year auld wis juist back frae Arbroath the wik afore an he telt me it wis "juist spittin" nou and then an "surprisingly sunny" maistlins. Onywey as lang as it's nae stoatin doon, that's fine weather tae me, <grin>. -- Derek Ross 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I wish I could have gone to one of the highland games, but it's been a long time since I've done anything like that.

Btw I do feel a bit out of place though - you know speaking in English rather than Scots. I think I've just forgotten the most of what I learned. Nou Uiserr 21:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Chynges

Ah dinnae ken gif this is the right place, bit whan Ah go tae Recent Chynges, Ah masitly jist get bot chynges. There's a wee linkie sayin "shaw bots" or "hide bots", bit it disnae seem tae dae onyhin. Is this a bug? Bazza 14:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's nae a bug. Gin we had a bureaucrat, we could mark bots, sae they didna kythe on the Recent Chynges leet whan ye clicked on the link. We tried tae get the stewards tae mak Mendor a bureaucrat here, sae that he cuid dae things like that, but we wis telt that the Scots Wikipedia is ower smaw tae hae a bureaucrat. An thon's the wey we hiv tae pit up wi bots fullin the Recent Chynges leet. -- Derek Ross 03:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Better Articles

I'll hope you will excuse me if I write this comment in English. I've read the some of the posts above debating if this is a joke wiki or not. First let me state my personal opinion. I'm not a linguist but I believe "modern scots" to a dialect of Scottish English(It's Self a dialect). But that is my opinion and if others feel it is a language that they want to communicate in fine. But if the users of this wiki want to stop people casting aspurtiona as to the validity of the language better quality articles need to be written. If the language is indeed rich enough to support modern communication then show us. Right now most of the pages read like the Simple English Wiki (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) which is intnded for non english speakers and young children. 194.200.145.5 09:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong on a rather fundamental point: Scots is NOT a dialect of Scottish English. No, really, that is something all linguists agree on. FWIW, here's **my** view: both "Scots" and "English" are dialect groups of a single "Anglian" language which descends from Old English. What this means is that, like Swedish-Norwegian-Danish and various dialects thereof, one could argue either for "language" or "dialect" depending on how one is defining those terms [in fact, this isn't really my opinion, but rather linguist fact]. Suffice to say, just like those unique dialects in Scandinavia which aren't afforded the status of "language" due to their not being the __national language__ of a country, and those other "languages" which **are** afforded such a status by virtue of being the __national languages__, I think "Scots" should be, for the purposes of wikipedia, treated as a "language", whatever the futile arguments over its language/non-language status may be. To re-iterate, it is a national variety, formerly offically so, and, like the Scandinavian languages, it is possible to say it is a dialect of another language, yet, it isn't fair to say it is a dialect of "English", as that term means the language I am writing in right now. It is better to say, as I propose, that both Scots and English are dialect groups of a single Anglian language. Or to put it another way, if we want to merge the Scots and English wikis, and let there be a free use of Scots and/or English in articles, then fair enuff! If we want to say, actually, let's keep these dialect groups to two discrete wikis (the status quo), then fair enuff! But to have English have a wiki, but not Scots, is simply linguistic discrimination. They are linguistically equal. They are parallel developments from different forms of Old English. This is NOT the situation, for instance, when comparing Standard British English and most other English dialects. Scots has a separate (but closely related) linguistic history and tradition. The question of whether "Scots" is a language "separate" to "English" is a spurious one: they are both dialect groups, or under-languages, of a language or over-language which some term "English", but which I, for clarity sake, term "Anglian". However, don't take this post as a reprimand; I know you aren't trying to be funny, just helpful, and I appreciate it. :) But I thought I might point out the factual errors in what you said, and discuss what is "English". Cheers. :) BTW Scottish English is basically Southern Standard British English with Scottish influences (essentially). So, it's not a form of Scots, at all, and neither is Scots a form of it. Bryan 82.44.212.6 23:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: BTW, I disagree. Just because there aren't enuff members, presently, to make this wiki as great as the English one does not, I repeat does not make it okay to slander the Scots language. That is a bit silly. Yes, if more articles were of a higher quality, then it would be harder to slander. But the fact is, some people will always slander Scots as they are, essentially, and without offending anyone, literally ignorant. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid. Bryan 82.44.212.6 23:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maist o the airticles here wis taen frae the Simple English Wikipedia. That's whit whey there's a resemblance. Bit nae apologies frae me. We dinna hae mony fowk that's fand o writin. Sae we dinna hae mony guid airticles. That's the wey o it juist noo. But that disna mean it'll aye be that wey. Gie it time. -- Derek Ross 02:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, this wiki is proper poo. It's a total waste of time, there's no need for it. 138.38.234.124 18:33, 15 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

I love these people who say "to be honest" as if they're passing the judgement of Solomon and there's nothing more to be said on the matter. Can we not appeal to a higher authority? No, the expert has spoken, we might as well just pack up and go home. puzzle 01:01, 16 Mairch 2007 (UTC)

Sidhe

Anybody every play the game Nethergate from Spiderweb Software? I might have my geography mixed up, in which case please do excuse me, but I've had a little sniff round the Scots 'paedia and there's not a whit of sidhe-related information to be found. --203.96.154.170 03:33, 7 Februar 2006 (UTC)

Man, there's a hale hillock o topics that we've naething on richt nou. We'r a lang wey yet frae feenishin this encyclopaedia. -- 68.147.241.235

Finnish wiki

The Finnish wiki has over 100,000 articles already. Better fix that.

An Englishman in Scotland

I am an Englishman who has lived for many years in the North-East of Scotland where Doric is spoken by most native-born inhabitants. I still have problems understanding some of the broader dialect but it causes me no problem. They understand me. I regard it as one of the many regional differences which go to make up the British Isles. If we were all to speak South-East English like some people would seem to want, what a poorer place this country would be be. I come from the North of England and I don't get criticized here for my accent but I have been in the past in the South of England, which makes me believe that the South of England is more parochial than anywhere north of Birmingham. This unsigned comment wis added by 194.75.159.78, just sae ye ken.

Yep. We're kind loons here! OchAyeTheNoo 21:59, 10 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

[fi-wikipedia] has got over 100 000 articles 84.248.85.238 15:38, 16 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

We ken that. OchAyeTheNoo 17:43, 17 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Just a question?

Sorry for speaking in English but I have a question about this Wikipedia. Let’s say I was going to make an article about a book or movie that was never translated into Scots. Since the book or movie was never written in Scots would I want to keep the English name for the page on the Scots Wikipedia since there is no Scots title for it or would I translate the name into Scots anyway? Also how would I go about writing an article about something that has no word for it in Scots (say a Nuclear Reactor for example)? Sorry if the answers to these questions seem obvious, but I’m new here so I am still not very familiar with this Wikipedia. Also you should think about archiveing this talk page. It’s getting really long.--User 123 23:52, 17 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

For your convenience, I'll reply in the same language. When faced with this question on the English Wikipedia, we have taken both approaches. So we use "The Magic Flute", rather than "Die Zauberflöte" but we use "Cosi fan tutte" instead of "Women are all the same". The same is true of titles on the Scots Wikipedia. If there is an obvious, or a common, Scots equivalent, use it; otherwise just use the original English title.

Turning to the "Nuclear Reactor" issue, we can once again look at what English did in the same position. It generally looked to Latin and Greek for technical terms, eg "encyclopedia" or "Nuclear" and "Reactor". Occasionally it looks further afield. For instance, "wiki" or "kayak". Not surprisingly Scots did the same. And since the languages have the same roots they generally came up with very similar solutions, for instance, English "deposit", Scots "depone" or English "nuclear reactor", Scots "nuclear reactor".

In summary, if you're not sure of the Scots term, use the English one. For at least 60% of the time you'll be right, particularly if the word is a technical term. And when you're wrong, there are people watching this Wiki who will fix it for you anyway so no harm done. Cheers -- Derek Ross 04:58, 18 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

Derek ye beat me tae it. Aw A can say is A concur wi the abiun.84.135.231.25 08:58, 18 Apryle 2007 (UTC)

O.K thanks for clearing things up for me.--User 123 17:41, 18 Apryle 2007 (UTC)